ADVERTISEMENT

wow.......and somebody will vote for these guys?

Goodness your arrogance and shear ignorance is astounding.

Just by population alone Sweden doesn't even crack our top ten. Denmark, the 2nd largest Scandinavian country, doesn't crack our top 20. Let's not even mention their military. They're lucking they aren't speaking Russian because they'd have no chance

So you and Bernie want to model our infinitely more diverse and larger population after a country the size of North Carolina?

To hell with venturing out of your box...take your head out of your ass.
So. Much. Ignorance.

So you think that their model only works because of their size? Ok smart guy, how bout Germany? No quite as socialized, but a ton more than us. 60 million people. Socialized medicine works for them! You idiots just want to keep your heads in the sand and protect your own wallet, the rest of the country be damned.

You should put your own post in the potato thread this week.
 
Yeah. Agree. The best you can say is that an armed public would make a "Red Dawn" type scenario unpleasant for the Russians. Only a thorn in their side. I interpret the 2nd amendment as such: "We need a militia since we don't plan a standing army. So every adult needs to maintain a weapon in case the militia is needed." The Revolutionary War was a war with heavy militia participation. That was the context in the 1780s. We haven't used militia since. We now maintain professional reserve forces. So that amendment is outdated. I think the Swiss still require all males to maintain a military weapon. No reading of the second amendment can be interpreted as "let's all have a gun so we can shoot shit" Just to participate in a well regulated militia. And the guard and reserve provide weapons.
Finally...a witty response among the gibberish that is being spewed around here. It is quite outdated. I am for allowing people to own a gun, but you should have to go through a waiting period and checks. COMPROMISE. Asking you to submit to a background check and making you wait 30 days is not "the first step that the government will use to take our guns away," like most consevatives think.

And Ben Carson's statement is so eggregiously stupid that I cannot believe he is getting a pass on it.
 
If iceheart and I agree on you being wrong what does that say about your argument? Stick to talking sports. At least you make some solid points in that regard.
 
If iceheart and I agree on you being wrong what does that say about your argument? Stick to talking sports. At least you make some solid points in that regard.
Iceheart isnt the god of all things liberal. He makes plenty of stupid comments. Saying that you cannot scale Scandinavia's politics to a larger country is ignorant.
 
Iceheart isnt the god of all things liberal. He makes plenty of stupid comments. Saying that you cannot scale Scandinavia's politics to a larger country is ignorant.

This guy formed his theoretical ideology in a classroom. Good luck having a rational conversation with him.

Let's just all be grateful we don't count on lifelong students, college professors and Starbucks employees to run small businesses, work on Wall Street or defend our freedoms. Leave those up to conservatives.
 
The fact that iceheart agrees with me should yell you that you don't know what you're talking about.

Stick to football...at least you could put a few coherent sentences together that I agreed with.
 
If raw intelligence was the main qualification W Bush would have never made it past the Texas governor primaries. BTW, William J Clinton, whom the vast majority love to hate on here, was widely considered among the top five most intelligent. Therefore, I don't think you want to push intelligence too hard.
It is hard to believe, but W's SAT was higher than Clinton's and Obama's. And about the same as Kerry. Go figure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SWUtigers
HAHAHAHAHA. I suppose you think Ben Carson is in that group? I wouldnt let that idiot tutor my child. And yes, there are plenty of other MDs that fall in that group also.
None of my associates. It is hard to get into and out of Med school. And the neurosurgery residency is the hardest of all. So he isn't dumb. He was also an innovator. Maybe some of the doctors you know have killed brain cells in the usual way. Or maybe they have blinded themselves to reason due to self interest. There are no short cuts through any surgery residency of any type. There is also something called board certification.Very rigorous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SWUtigers
None of my associates. It is hard to get into and out of Med school. And the neurosurgery residency is the hardest of all. So he isn't dumb. He was also an innovator. Maybe some of the doctors you know have killed brain cells in the usual way. Or maybe they have blinded themselves to reason due to self interest. There are no short cuts through any surgery residency of any type. There is also something called board certification.Very rigorous.

How does a person Qualify to get into neuro surgery or thoracic vascular surgery? Is it based off of their grades in medical school? Or do they have to take additional qualifying exams post medical school? Likewise, how does Yale vs. another "lesser" medical school evaluate a doctor for post graduate residence?
 
What would I have to be embarrassed about? A fixation on a narrow interpretation of the constitution is not a requirement. Actually, it is not even good politics.
No, it's called the law, separation of power. You know that concept upon which our nation was built. When the Supreme Court and the President make laws I don't think that falls into the category of "narrow interpretation". And, yeah, I'm fixated on it.
 
How does a person Qualify to get into neuro surgery or thoracic vascular surgery? Is it based off of their grades in medical school? Or do they have to take additional qualifying exams post medical school? Likewise, how does Yale vs. another "lesser" medical school evaluate a doctor for post graduate residence?
Glad you asked this. Yes, some med schools are more competitive. Ivy's, Stanford, Hopkins at the top. Very good are Emory, Vandy, VA, UNC. MUSC and MCG are old and in a tier of very good schools. Newer ones like USC, Greenville, ECU are still competitive and good, but less so. Then the foreign/offshore. So you graduate. Every med student has to take step one and two of the national boards to graduate. Scores are important in getting interviews. Most have done a senior rotation at a hospital where they want to train. There are interviews during the senior year. The residencies interview and rank applicants. The med students rank their choices. All of this is official and organized. There is a day in March every year when a national computerized match takes place. And then you find out where you do your residency. Binding. The more prestigious places will have better applicants and in theory more people ranking them #1. If you rank a place 1 and it ranks you 1 then you get it. If you don't match at all then you must scramble for unfilled slots. Maybe in a field not of your choosing. The only "match buster" is some mysterious formula used to keep married couples together. Neurosurgery is a seven year residency most places. And there are fewer of them. Charleston(MUSC) has one but not Greenville or Columbia. They have General Surgery and Ortho, as does Charleston. I bet this process is unknown to most. It was to me until I went through it 35 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boosetiger
This guy formed his theoretical ideology in a classroom. Good luck having a rational conversation with him.

Let's just all be grateful we don't count on lifelong students, college professors and Starbucks employees to run small businesses, work on Wall Street or defend our freedoms. Leave those up to conservatives.
Very thoughtful. Thanks for the input.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boosetiger
Glad you asked this. Yes, some med schools are more competitive. Ivy's, Stanford, Hopkins at the top. Very good are Emory, Vandy, VA, UNC. MUSC and MCG are old and in a tier of very good schools. Newer ones like USC, Greenville, ECU are still competitive and good, but less so. Then the foreign/offshore. So you graduate. Every med student has to take step one and two of the national boards to graduate. Scores are important in getting interviews. Most have done a senior rotation at a hospital where they want to train. There are interviews during the senior year. The residencies interview and rank applicants. The med students rank their choices. All of this is official and organized. There is a day in March every year when a national computerized match takes place. And then you find out where you do your residency. Binding. The more prestigious places will have better applicants and in theory more people ranking them #1. If you rank a place 1 and it ranks you 1 then you get it. If you don't match at all then you must scramble for unfilled slots. Maybe in a field not of your choosing. The only "match buster" is some mysterious formula used to keep married couples together. Neurosurgery is a seven year residency most places. And there are fewer of them. Charleston(MUSC) has one but not Greenville or Columbia. They have General Surgery and Ortho, as does Charleston. I bet this process is unknown to most. It was to me until I went through it 35 years ago.

Hey, thanks for the detailed response! I enjoyed reading all of that and I learned a lot. I never knew it was that organized for sure. Again, thanks!
 
No, it's called the law, separation of power. You know that concept upon which our nation was built. When the Supreme Court and the President make laws I don't think that falls into the category of "narrow interpretation". And, yeah, I'm fixated on it.
Boose -
Been ruminating on your reply and it sounds like you MAY have an issue with what conservatives call "Legislating from the bench" ? I get what you are saying but someone has to determine if Congress has made a mistake and went too far and stepped on the constitutional rights. Correct? For instance, take Segregataion, if the court had not stepped in then some states might still have these segregation laws and I think virtually everyone believe that they are unconstitutional. Right? So, doesn't the court have a duty to override Congress in an instance such as this?

I also would like to hear your opinion on Obamacare. Again, it seems as if many conservatives want to give huge deference to the legislature. However, in the case of the ACA, congress wrote the law and the President signed it. If you indeed want to provide huge deference to the legislature, wouldn't a conservative principal be in line with supporting the law as written and signed by the legislature and then the President?
 
Boose -
Been ruminating on your reply and it sounds like you MAY have an issue with what conservatives call "Legislating from the bench" ? I get what you are saying but someone has to determine if Congress has made a mistake and went too far and stepped on the constitutional rights. Correct? For instance, take Segregataion, if the court had not stepped in then some states might still have these segregation laws and I think virtually everyone believe that they are unconstitutional. Right? So, doesn't the court have a duty to override Congress in an instance such as this?

I also would like to hear your opinion on Obamacare. Again, it seems as if many conservatives want to give huge deference to the legislature. However, in the case of the ACA, congress wrote the law and the President signed it. If you indeed want to provide huge deference to the legislature, wouldn't a conservative principal be in line with supporting the law as written and signed by the legislature and then the President?
Thanks for the very thoughtful reply Sundrop. I take issue with your point on segregation. There was the 1964 Voting Rights Act and the 1965 Civil Rights Act passed and the Supreme Court rightly upheld their constitutionality. This court, out of the blue, gave the same consideration to the GLBT community. I would proffer a law should have been passed since no other law was passed with knowledge it would be used to change our society on such a grand scale. The Court doesn't correct Congress. They rule on the constitutionality and interpret their laws, that's their "check" on the legislature. There are 3 arduous ways to change the Constitution and Congress alone can't do it. Obama signing the executive orders he himself said were unconstitutional 22 times, really gives me heartburn.
I don't favor giving any branch more power. It has worked well so far. The ACA is the law of the land. I think it is a terrible law written primarily by the healthcare industry and doesn't address cost at all! But until the legislature passes another law and the president signs it, ACA is the law of the land. In the end voters decide if Congress has made a mistake, not the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the very thoughtful reply Sundrop. I take issue with your point on segregation. There was the 1964 Voting Rights Act and the 1965 Civil Rights Act passed and the Supreme Court rightly upheld their constitutionality. This court, out of the blue, gave the same consideration to the GLBT community. I would proffer a law should have been passed since no other law was passed with knowledge it would be used to change our society on such a grand scale. The Court doesn't correct Congress. They rule on the constitutionality and interpret their laws, that's their "check" on the legislature. There are 3 arduous ways to change the Constitution and Congress alone can't do it. Obama signing the executive orders he himself said were unconstitutional 22 times, really gives me heartburn.
I don't favor giving any branch more power. It has worked well so far. The ACA is the law of the land. I think it is a terrible law written primarily by the healthcare industry and doesn't address cost at all! But until the legislature passes another law and the president signs it, ACA is the law of the land. In the end voters decide if Congress has made a mistake, not the Supreme Court.

Good point re: Segregataion. I also totally agree with you about the ACA and it not addressing the underlying cost structure. The law has been a boon to a lot of major healthcare companies and that is not a good thing for the patients or the physicians. That is quite regrettable.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT